“Wherefore remember, that
aforetime ye the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision
by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that
ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the
promise, having no hope, and without God in the
world.”

There are many things to show the loving-kindness of God. First, the
fact, that by Himself He hath saved us, and by Himself through such a
method as this. Secondly, that He hath saved us, as being what we were.
Thirdly, that He hath exalted us to the place where we are. For all
these things both contain in themselves the greatest demonstration of
His loving-kindness, and they are the very subjects which Paul is now
agitating in his Epistle. He had been saying, that when we were dead
through our trespasses, and children of wrath, He saved us; He is now
telling us further, to whom He hath made us equal.
“Wherefore,” saith he, “remember;” because it
is usual with us, one and all, when we are raised from a state of great
meanness to corresponding, or perhaps a greater, dignity, not so much
as even to retain any recollection of our former condition, being
nourished in this our new glory. On this account it is that he says,
“Wherefore remember.”—“Wherefore.” Why,
“wherefore?”225225 [“Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits
have been imparted to us (vv.
4–10),” (Ellicott vv. 1–7). “These benefits should
move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state in order
to appreciate by contrast the value of his present state.”
Meyer.—G.A.] Because we have
been created unto good works, and this were sufficient to induce us to
cultivate virtue; “remember,”—for that remembrance is
sufficient to make us grateful to our Benefactor,—“that ye
were aforetime Gentiles.” Observe how he lowers the superior
advantages of the Jews and admires the disadvantages of the Gentiles;
disadvantage indeed it was not, but he is arguing with each
respectively from their character and manner of life.

“Who are called
Uncircumcision.”226226 [“They were those designated ‘Foreskin’ by the
people who bear the name of the surgical operation performed on their
flesh.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

The honor then of the Jews is in
names, their perogative is in the flesh. For uncircumcision is nothing,
and circumcision is nothing.

“By that which is
called,” saith he, “Circumcision in the flesh made by
hands, that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.227227 [“They were without church, without promise, without hope,
without God, and that in the profane wicked world (ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ being in
contrast to πολιτείας
τοῦ Ισραήλ and like it, ethical in reference.) ῞Αθεοι may mean
ignorant of God or forsaken by God, probably the
latter.”—Ellicott.—G.A.]

71Ye, saith he, who were thus called by the Jews. But why when he is
about to show that the benefit bestowed upon them consisted in this, in
having fellowship with Israel, does he disparage the Israelitish
prerogative? He does not disparage it. In essential points he enhances
it, but only in these points, in which they had no fellowship, he
disparages it. For further on he says, “Ye are fellow-citizens of
the saints and of the household of God.” Mark, how far he is from
disparaging it. These points, saith he, are indifferent. Never think,
saith he, that because ye happen not to be circumcised, and are now in
uncircumcision, that there is any difference in this. No, the real
trouble was this, the being “without Christ,” the being
“aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.” Whereas this
circumcision is not “the commonwealth.” Again, the being
strangers from the covenants of promise, the having no hope to come,
the being without God in this world, all these were parts of their
condition. He was speaking of heavenly things; he speaks also of those
which are upon earth; since the Jews had a great opinion of these. Thus
also Christ in comforting His disciples, after saying, “Blessed
are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” adds the lesser point of
consolation, “for so,” saith He, “persecuted they the
prophets which were before you.” (Matt. v.
10–12.) For this, compared with the greatness of the other, is
far less, yet in regard to the being nigh, and believing, it is great
and sufficient, and has much force. This then was the sharing in the
commonwealth. His word is not, “separated,” but
“alienated from the commonwealth.” His word is not,
“ye took no interest in,” but, “ye had not so much as
any part in, and were strangers.” The expressions are most
emphatic, and indicate the separation to be very wide. Because the
Israelites themselves were without this commonwealth, not however as
aliens, but as indifferent to it, and they fell from the covenants, not
however as strangers, but as unworthy.

But what were “the
covenants of the promise?” “To thee and to thy seed,”
saith He, “will I give this land,” (Gen. xvii. 8.) and whatever
else He promised.

“Having no hope,” he
adds, “and without God.” Though gods indeed they
worshipped, but they were no gods: “for an idol is not any
thing.” (1 Cor. x. 19.)

Ver.
13–15. “But now,228228 [“This too is what they should remember, but the Apostle
continues the contrast in an independent sentence.”—Riddle,
in Popular Commentary.—G.A.] in Christ Jesus,
ye that once were far off, are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For He
is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of
partition, having abolished in His flesh the enmity.”

Is this then the great
privilege, it may be said, that we are admitted into the commonwealth
of the Jews? What art thou saying? “He hath summed up all things
that are in heaven, and that are in earth,” and now dost thou
tell us about Israelites? Yes, he would say. Those higher privileges we
must apprehend by faith; these, by the things themselves. “But
now,” saith he, “in Christ Jesus, ye that once were far
off, are made nigh,” in reference to the commonwealth. For the
“far off,” and the “nigh,” are matters of will
and choice only.

“For He229229 [“The emphatic pronoun is used, αὐτὸς. But He
is not put in opposition to ‘ourselves’ having made the
peace, but as Bengel says, ‘Not merely is He peacemaker, for at
the cost of ‘Himself’ He procured
peace.’”—Meyer.—G.A.] is our peace, Who made both
one.”

What is this, “both
one?” He does not mean this, that He hath raised us to that high
descent of theirs, but that he hath raised both us and them to a yet
higher. Only that the blessing to us is greater, because to these it
had been promised, and they were nearer than we; to us it had not been
promised, and we were farther off than they. Therefore it is that he
says, “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His
mercy.” (Rom. xv. 9.) The promise indeed He
gave to the Israelites, but they were unworthy; to us He gave no
promise, nay, we were even strangers, we had nothing in common with
them; yet hath He made us one, not by knitting us to them, but by
knitting both them and us together into one. I will give you an
illustration. Let us suppose there to be two statues, the one of
silver, the other of lead, and then that both shall be melted down, and
that the two shall come out gold. Behold, thus hath He made the two
one. Or put the case again in another way. Let the two be, one a slave,
the other an adopted son: and let both offend Him, the one as a
disinherited child, the other as a fugitive, and one who never knew a
father. Then let both be made heirs, both trueborn sons. Behold, they
are exalted to one and the same dignity, the two are become one, the
one coming from a longer, the other from a nearer distance, and the
slave becoming more noble than he was before he offended.

“And brake down,” he
proceeds, “the middle wall of partition.”

What the middle wall of
partition is, he interprets by saying, “the enmity having
abolished in His flesh, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances.” Some indeed affirm that he means the wall of the
Jews against the Greeks, because it did not allow the Jews to hold
intercourse with the Greeks. To me, however, this does not seem to be
the meaning, but 72rather that he calls “the enmity in the flesh,”
a middle wall, in that it is a common barrier, cutting us off alike
from God.230230 [“The only mode of taking ἔχθραν in harmony
with the context is not as Chrysostom, “but of the enmity which
existed between Jews and Gentiles.”—Meyer. “῾Εν τῇ
σαρκί, ‘in the
flesh,’ does not belong to τὴν
ἔχθραν, as
Chrysostom construes it but to καταργήσας, ‘having abolished.’” So Meyer and Rev.
Ver.—G.A.] As the Prophet says, “Your
iniquities separate between you and Me;” (Isa. lix. 2.) for that enmity
which He had both against Jews and Gentiles was, as it were, a middle
wall. And this, whilst the law existed, was not only not abolished, but
rather was strengthened; “for the law,” saith the Apostle,
“worketh wrath.” (Rom. iv. 15.) Just in the
same way then as when he says in that passage, “the law worketh
wrath,” he does not ascribe the whole of this effect to the law
itself, but it is to be understood, that it is because we have
transgressed it; so also in this place he calls it a middle wall,
because through being disobeyed it wrought enmity. The law was a hedge,
but this it was made for the sake of security, and for this reason was
called “a hedge,” to the intent that it might form an
inclosure. For listen again to the Prophet, where he says, “I
made a trench about it.” (Isa. v. 2.) And again,
“Thou hast broken down her fences, so that all they which pass by
the way do pluck her.” (Ps. lxxx. 12.) Here therefore
it means security and so again, “I will take away the hedge
thereof, and it shall be trodden down.” (Isa. v. 5.) And again,
“He gave them the law for a defence.” (Isa. viii. 20.) And again,
“The Lord executeth righteous acts and made known His ways unto
Israel.” (Ps. ciii. 6, 7.) It became, however, a
middle wall, no longer establishing them in security, but cutting them
off from God. Such then is the middle wall of partition formed out of
the hedge. And to explain what this is, he subjoins, “the enmity
in His flesh having abolished, the law of
commandments.”

How so? In that He was slain and
dissolved the enmity therein. And not in this way only but also by
keeping it. But what then, if we are released from the former
transgression, and yet are again compelled to keep it? Then were the
case the same over again, whereas He hath destroyed the very law
itself. For he says, “Having abolished the law of commandments
contained in ordinances.” Oh! amazing loving-kindness! He gave us
a law that we should keep it, and when we kept it not, and ought to
have been punished, He even abrogated the law itself. As if a man, who,
having committed a child to a schoolmaster, if he should turn out
disobedient, should set him at liberty even from the schoolmaster, and
take him away. How great loving-kindness were this! What is meant
by,

“Having abolished by
ordinances?”231231 [The
order of the Greek is as follows: τὸν νόμον
τῶν ἐντολῶν
ἐν δόγμασιν
καταργήσας. Chrysostom has because of the order joined ἐν
δόγμασιν with καταργήσας, as its modal definition. But ἐν
δόγμασιν belongs to ἐντολῶν meaning ‘the law of commandments consisting in
ordinances,’ “ἐντολῶν denoting the ‘contents’ of the law and ἐν
δόγμασιν the ‘form’ in which they were given;” so
Meyer.—G.A.]

For he makes a wide distinction
between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He
either then means “faith,” calling that an
“ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means
“precept,” such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I
say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.” (Matt. v.
22.)
That is to say, “If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x.
6–9.) And again, “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in
thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall
descend into the abyss?” or, who hath “brought Him again
from the dead?” Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought
in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself
underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by
doctrines.

“That he might create in
Himself of the twain, one new man.”

Observe thou, that it is not
that the Gentile is become a Jew, but that both the one and the other
are entered into another condition. It was not with a view of merely
making this last other than he was, but rather, in order to create the
two anew. And well does he on all occasions employ the word
“create,” and does not say “change,” in order
to point out the power of what was done, and that even though the
creation be invisible, yet it is no less a creation than that is, and
that we ought not henceforward start away from this, as from natural
things.

“That He might in Himself
of the twain.”

That is, by Himself.232232 [ἐν
αὐτῷ: “This is not
equivalent to δἰ
ἑαυτοῦ, as
Chrysostom, but it affirms that the unity to be brought about was to be
founded in Christ Himself, was to have the basis of its existence and
continuance in Him and not in any other unifying principles
whatever.”—Meyer.—G.A.] He gave not this charge to another, but
Himself, by Himself, melted both the one and the other, and produced a
glorious one, and one greater than the first creation; and that one,
first, was Himself. For this is the meaning of “in
Himself.” He Himself first gave the type and example. Laying hold
on the one hand of the Jew, and on the other of the Gentile, and
Himself being in the midst, He blended them together, made all the
estrangement which existed between them to disappear, and fashioned
them anew from above by fire and by water; no longer with water and
earth, but with water and fire. He became a Jew by circumcision, He
became accursed, He 73became a Gentile without the law, and was over both Gentiles
and Jews.

“One new man,” saith
he, “so making peace.”

Peace for them both towards God,
and towards each other. For so long as they continued still Jews and
Gentiles, they could not have been reconciled. And had they not been
delivered each from his own peculiar condition, they would not have
arrived at another and a higher one. For the Jew is then united to the
Gentile when he becomes a believer. It is like persons being in a
house, with two chambers below, and one large and grand one above: they
would not be able to see each other, till they had got
above.

“Making peace,” more
especially towards God; for this the context shows, for what saith
he?

Ver.
16.
“And might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the
Cross.”

He saith, not merely
“might reconcile,” (καταλλάξῃ) but “might reconcile thoroughly”
(ἀποκαταλλάξῃ233233 [Meyer says the ἀπό strengthens the notion of
reconciliation, Ellicott that it not only strengthens but hints at a
restoration to primal unity, the ἀπό meaning again.—G.A.]) indicating that
heretofore human nature had been easily reconciled, as, e.g., in the
case of the saints and before the time of the Law.

“In one body,” saith
he, and that His own, “unto God.” How is this effected? By
Himself, he means, suffering the due penalty.

“Through the cross having
slain the enmity thereby.”234234 [“‘After he shall have slain the enmity
&c.;’ for it is inserted in the second half of the
affirmation of ‘design’ and is correlative to ποιῶν
εἰρήνην.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

Nothing can be more decisive,
nothing more expressive than these words. His death, saith the Apostle,
hath “slain” the enmity. He hath “wounded” and
“killed” it, not by giving charge to another, nor by what
He wrought only, but also by what He suffered. He does not say
“having dissolved,” he does say “having
cancelled,” but what is stronger than all, “having
slain,” so that it never should rise again. How then is it that
it does rise again? From our exceeding depravity. For as long as we
abide in the body of Christ, as long as we are united, it rises not
again, but lies dead; or rather that former enmity never rises again at
all. But if we breed another, it is no longer because of Him, who hath
destroyed and put to death the former one. It is thou, forsooth, that
travailest with a fresh one. “For the mind of the flesh,”
saith he, “is enmity against God;” (Rom. viii. 6.) if we are in
nothing carnally-minded, there will be no fresh enmity produced, but
that “peace” shall remain.

Moral.
Think then, how vast an evil is it, when God hath employed so many
methods to reconcile us, and hath effected it, that we should again
fall back into enmity! This enmity no fresh Baptism, but hell itself
awaits; no fresh remission, but searching trial. The mind of the flesh
is luxury and indolence, the “mind of the flesh” is
covetousness and all kinds of sin. Why is it said the mind of the
flesh? While yet the flesh could do nothing without the soul. He does
not say this to the disparagement of the flesh, any more than when he
says the “natural man,” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) he uses that
expression to the disparagement of the soul, for neither body nor soul
in itself, if it receive not the impulse which is far above, is able to
achieve any thing great or noble. Hence he calls those acts which the
soul performs of herself, “natural; ψυχικά” and those which the body performs of itself
“carnal.” Not because these are natural, but because,
inasmuch as they receive not that direction from heaven, they perish.
So the eyes are good, but without light, will commit innumerable
errors; this, however, is the fault of their weakness, not of nature.
Were the errors natural, then should we never be able to use them
aright at all. For nothing that is natural is evil. Why then does he
call carnal affections sins? Because whenever the flesh exalts herself,
and gets the mastery over her charioteer, she produces ten thousand
mischiefs. The virtue of the flesh is, her subjection to the soul. It
is her vice to govern the soul. As the horse then may be good and
nimble, and yet this is not shown without a rider; so also the flesh
will then show her goodness, when we cut off her prancings. But neither
again is the rider shown, if he have not skill. Nay he himself will do
mischief yet more fearful than that before named. So that on all hands
we must have the Spirit at hand. This being at hand will impart new
strength to the rider; this will give beauty both to body and soul. For
just as the soul, while dwelling in the body, makes it beautiful, but
when she leaves it destitute of her own native energy and departs, like
a painter confounding his colors together, the greatest loathsomeness
ensues, every one of the several parts hastening to corruption, and
dissolution:—so is it also when the Spirit forsakes the body and
the soul, the loathsomeness which ensues is worse and greater. Do not
then, because the body is inferior to the soul, revile it, for neither
do I endure to revile the soul because it hath no strength without the
Spirit. If one need say anything at all, the soul is deserving of the
greater censure than the body; for the body indeed can do no grevious
harm without the soul, whereas the soul can do much without the body.
Because, we know, when the one is even wasting away, and has no
wantonness, the soul is busily employed. Even as those sorcerers,
magicians, 74envious persons, enchanters, especially cause the body to waste
away. But besides this, not even luxury is the effect of the necessity
of the body, but rather of the inattentiveness of the soul; for food,
not feasting, is the object of the necessity of the body. For if I have
a mind to put on a strong curb, I stop the horse; but the body is
unable to check the soul in her evil courses. Wherefore then does he
call it the carnal mind? Because it comes to be wholly of the flesh,
for when she has the mastery, then she goes wrong, as soon as ever she
has deprived herself of reason, and of the supremacy of the soul. The
virtue therefore of the body consists in this, in its submission to the
soul, since of itself the flesh is neither good nor evil. For what
could the body ever do of itself? It is then by its connection that the
body is good, good because of its subjection, but of itself neither
good nor evil, with capacity, however, both for one and for the other,
and having an equal tendency either way. The body has a natural desire,
not however of fornication, nor of adultery, but of pleasure; the body
has a desire not of feasting, but of food; not of drunkenness, but of
drink. For in proof that it is not drunkenness that is the natural
desire of the body, mark how, whenever you exceed the measure, when you
go beyond the boundary-lines, it cannot hold out a moment longer. Up to
this point it is of the body, but all the rest of the excesses, as
e.g., when she is hurried away into sensualities, when she becomes
stupefied, these are of the soul. For though the body be good, still it
is vastly inferior to the soul, as lead is less of value than gold, and
yet gold needs lead to solder it, and just so has the soul need also of
the body. Or in the same way as a noble child requires a conductor, so
again does the soul stand in need of the body. For, as we speak of
childish things, not to the disparagement of childhood, but only of
those acts which are done during childhood; so also are we now speaking
of the body.

Yet it is in our power, if we
will, no longer to be in the flesh, no, nor upon the earth, but in
heaven, and in the Spirit. For our being here or there, is not
determined so much by our position, as by our disposition. Of many
people, at least, who are in some place, we say they are not there,
when we say, “Thou wast not here. And again Thou art not
here.” And why do I say this? We often say, “Thou art not
at (ἐν) thyself, I am not at
(ἐν) myself,” and yet what can be
more material (a stronger instance of corporeal locality) than this,
that a man is near to himself? And yet, notwithstanding, we say that he
is not at himself. Let us then be in ourselves, in heaven, in the
Spirit. Let us abide in the peace and in the grace of God, that we may
be set at liberty from all the things of the flesh, and may be able to
attain to those good things which are promised in Jesus Christ our
Lord, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory,
and might, and honor, now and henceforth, and for ever and ever.
Amen.

225 [“Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits
have been imparted to us (vv.
4–10),” (Ellicott vv. 1–7). “These benefits should
move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state in order
to appreciate by contrast the value of his present state.”
Meyer.—G.A.]

226 [“They were those designated ‘Foreskin’ by the
people who bear the name of the surgical operation performed on their
flesh.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

227 [“They were without church, without promise, without hope,
without God, and that in the profane wicked world (ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ being in
contrast to πολιτείας
τοῦ Ισραήλ and like it, ethical in reference.) ῞Αθεοι may mean
ignorant of God or forsaken by God, probably the
latter.”—Ellicott.—G.A.]

228 [“This too is what they should remember, but the Apostle
continues the contrast in an independent sentence.”—Riddle,
in Popular Commentary.—G.A.]

229 [“The emphatic pronoun is used, αὐτὸς. But He
is not put in opposition to ‘ourselves’ having made the
peace, but as Bengel says, ‘Not merely is He peacemaker, for at
the cost of ‘Himself’ He procured
peace.’”—Meyer.—G.A.]

230 [“The only mode of taking ἔχθραν in harmony
with the context is not as Chrysostom, “but of the enmity which
existed between Jews and Gentiles.”—Meyer. “῾Εν τῇ
σαρκί, ‘in the
flesh,’ does not belong to τὴν
ἔχθραν, as
Chrysostom construes it but to καταργήσας, ‘having abolished.’” So Meyer and Rev.
Ver.—G.A.]

231 [The
order of the Greek is as follows: τὸν νόμον
τῶν ἐντολῶν
ἐν δόγμασιν
καταργήσας. Chrysostom has because of the order joined ἐν
δόγμασιν with καταργήσας, as its modal definition. But ἐν
δόγμασιν belongs to ἐντολῶν meaning ‘the law of commandments consisting in
ordinances,’ “ἐντολῶν denoting the ‘contents’ of the law and ἐν
δόγμασιν the ‘form’ in which they were given;” so
Meyer.—G.A.]

232 [ἐν
αὐτῷ: “This is not
equivalent to δἰ
ἑαυτοῦ, as
Chrysostom, but it affirms that the unity to be brought about was to be
founded in Christ Himself, was to have the basis of its existence and
continuance in Him and not in any other unifying principles
whatever.”—Meyer.—G.A.]

233 [Meyer says the ἀπό strengthens the notion of
reconciliation, Ellicott that it not only strengthens but hints at a
restoration to primal unity, the ἀπό meaning again.—G.A.]

234 [“‘After he shall have slain the enmity
&c.;’ for it is inserted in the second half of the
affirmation of ‘design’ and is correlative to ποιῶν
εἰρήνην.”—Meyer.—G.A.]